World

The typical Brazilian thinks that with education, everyone lives well

Every now and then I write about some cultural problem and someone appears in the comments box saying that the solution is education, referring to school and not domestic. In fact, I believe that we can say that education, a good school, are, in the Brazilian common sense, a kind of electric fish oil: it cures fallen spine, it cures misandry, it cures licit or illicit drug addiction, it cures criminality. Education is to the average Brazilian what money is to the average bureaucrat. The typical bureaucrat thinks that everyone lives well with money; the typical Brazilian thinks that everyone lives well with education.

I still think Brazilians are more sensible than bureaucrats, since we see people out there doing a lot of stupid things with money. Snorting cocaine is an expensive addiction. Buying things of high luxury can only mean appreciation for ostentation, rather than the real enjoyment of superior quality… basic. Abstract markers such as the poverty line only consider an individual’s monthly per capita income, and leave out property. In other words: if a small rural landowner who moves by animal traction earns x reais, he will be worse off in the index than a slum dweller in the metropolis who earns 2x and spends x on rent and transport. Bureaucracy is an impressive business.

But if we can look at the wealthy using money to harm themselves, what about the open-air hospice that universities provide for the public? Now, it is much easier to find common sense in an illiterate bricklayer than in a doctor of gender studies. “This is the result of indoctrination!”, will say the average Brazilian. “We need true education to fight indoctrination!”, he will add, without losing sight of the magnificent effectiveness of his electric fish oil.

I totally agree that indoctrination is an obstacle to education. Even for practical reasons, because either you dedicate yourself to teaching politics, or you dedicate yourself to teaching reading and writing. Even so, it is possible to return the question: are men of letters more indoctrinated because they frequent an ideologized environment, or does the fact that an environment is full of men of letters make it more prone to ideologization? Tostines sells more because it’s fresh, or is it fresh because it sells more?

Lack of humility is a defect of the literate

I get the second explanation. Let’s move on to something less crazy than gender ideology, and one that has enjoyed a lot of reputation among the literati in general: communism. In the last century, it was not difficult to find those who defended it in middle and upper class environments. In colleges, then, it was a whoop. The more one studied, the greater the chances of being a communist. And the less you studied, the greater the chances of even knowing what communism is.

Imagine yourself now explaining to an illiterate peon what communism is. Not real communism, but the mirage that seduced so many people: a world in which nothing belongs to anyone because everything belongs to everyone, and everyone works for everyone willingly, without anyone needing or forcing them. Is it possible for the illiterate pawn to believe such a thing? Only if there’s a supernatural element in between, like, “Jesus will return to earth, and then all things will be everyone’s, and work will no longer be a torture. Everyone will live forever without poverty and famine, because everyone will work for everyone as brothers.” Oh yes. With a touch of miracle, the thing becomes believable for those who already believe in miracles – and illiterate peons in general believe in a world full of supernatural elements.

But go to an illiterate peon and say: “Let’s go take up arms, kill the owners of everything and make sure that no one else can own anything afterwards!”. Aside from the obvious moral problem – killing the owners – what are the chances of this succeeding, in the eyes of a pawn? However, for the literate this was perfectly plausible. The miracle is that it is unbelievable.

I think the reader can agree with me regarding the greater religiosity or superstitiousness of the less educated and the greater atheism of the literate. If we want to look for an atheist, we go to universities and newsrooms; if a researcher wants to rescue the most ancient beliefs, an illiterate is the ideal source. Atheists are disproportionately present among people of letters and bureaucracy. This is not due to a “structural Christophobia” (although there is a great prejudice against evangelicals in this environment), but to a very rationalist worldview. The literate sees nature as a controllable environment; the ignorant, on the contrary, sees it populated by spirits, saints and demons that he cannot control. It is no accident that the three great planners of the 19th century – Saint-Simon, Comte and Marx – were atheists and rationalists. Thus, the belief in human capacity is exacerbated. The literate are usually far from humble, and their arrogance leads them to formulate great planning systems that are propagated in the academic environment. Ideologization is a consequence of an arrogant disposition of men of letters, not the opposite.

Simplicity can help

As there is more devotees than atheists, let us say that, as far as worldview is concerned, society tends to be more like the illiterate than the man of letters, and that the former can be seen as an involuntary conservative resistance in the field of morality. .

It’s no use even for the TV to say “all”, because he just won’t understand what she means by that. He doesn’t read things on social media, because he doesn’t know how to read. He will not understand complex and abstract ideas, because he is not used to understanding complex and abstract ideas. Try to explain to an illiterate that the distinction between cis and trans is different from the distinction between homo and straight, so that a cis man (with a penis) who likes a trans woman (with a penis) is straight and not homo (According to ideology gender, what I just wrote is true). The illiterate does not grasp these concepts, nor is he interested. He only knows what “a faggot” is and what “a traveco” is; any conversation about “macho” liking someone else’s virile member is something for crazy people.

In the case of communism, there is also a whole complex jargon that, to be grasped, requires more brains than an illiterate wants to spend.

Illiterates will not come up with complex reasoning. If there were only illiterates, there would be no Newtonian physics or complex novels like Quixote. But complexity is not a good thing in itself. As our society has been valuing complex things as good in themselves, gawking at any loudmouth who presents numbers and uses jargon, this simplicity of the illiterates ends up becoming a virtue.

Social importance of opinion among the literate

Finally, simple people, having only simple opinions and being given to discussing only banal things, are not judged according to their opinions. She is judged by her conduct: by what does, not by what she says. In the world of letters, opinion is work; thus, it makes sense that people judge themselves on the basis of their opinions. The judgment that starts on the intellectual plane (“So-and-so is an idiot to believe in such stupidity”) soon passes to the moral plane (“It’s impossible for So-and-so to believe that stupidity he says. He’s expecting some gain from it!”). And as people are very judged by what they say, they end up neglecting what they do. Here is the stage set for hypocrisy to be established.

Moreover, as talking is easy, it also creates the ideal space for irresponsibility. And so we are in the current situation in which the literate are pressured by their peers to speak nonsense in unison, without paying any attention to the reality of the facts. And as what matters, to judge someone, is only what the person says, this pressure only tends to increase.

I believe that bubbles of opinion form in this way. And I don’t believe that the formal education of the population helps in this process, as this only makes more people think with a literate mind.

Back to top button